alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 27, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56498-56501]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-8319]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal No. 06-68]

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 604-
6575.
    The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives, Transmittal 06-68 with attached transmittal and policy 
justification.

    Dated: September 22, 2006.
C.R. Choate,
Alternate OSD Register Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 56499]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27SE06.117

[[Page 56500]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27SE06.118

[[Page 56501]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN27SE06.119

[FR Doc. 06-8319 Filed 9-26-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
```
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

WASHINCTON, D.C.20463

Au0 2 S 20tS

Thomas J. Josefiak

Michael Bayes

Holtzman Vogel Josefiak Torchinsky PLLC

45 North Hill Drive

Suite 100

Warrenton, VA 20186

RE: MUR 6696R

Dear Mr. Josefiak and Mr. Bayes:

On August 3,2018, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia

remanded MUR 6696 to the Federal Election Commission for further consideration. MUR 6696

involved a complaint alleging that your client, Crossroads Grassroots Policy Strategies

("Crossroads GPS"), had violated certain sections of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971,

as amended.

On August 28,2018, the Commission considered the complaint in light of the remand but

was equally divided on whether to approve the Offrce of General Counsel's recommendation to

dismiss the allegations that Crossroads GPS violated 52 U.S.C. $$ 3010a(cX1) and (2).

Accordingly, the Commission closed its file in this matter.

Documents related to the case will be placed on the public record within 30 days. See

Disclosure of Certain Documents in Enforcement and Other Matters, 81 Fed. Reg. 50,702

(Aug. 2,2016), effective September 1,2016.

If you have any questions, please contact Amanda Andrade, the attorney assigned to this

matter, at (202) 694-1650.

Sincerely,

(

Jin Lee

Acting Assistant General Counsel
#### § 401.19 Statements and payrolls.

The regulations of the Secretary of Labor applicable to contractors and subcontractors (29 CFR part 3), made pursuant to the Copeland “Anti-Kickback” Act (18 U.S.C. 874), as amended, are made a part of the regulations in this part by reference. The Cooperator will comply with the regulations in this part and any amendments or modifications thereof, and the Cooperator's prime contractor will be responsible for the submission of statements required of subcontractors thereunder. The foregoing shall apply except as the Secretary of Labor may specifically provide for reasonable limitation, variations, tolerances, and exemptions.
6,000 Gallon Mix Tank 15000 Kg/batch Water 481 Kg/batch SZ-203* 2400 Kg/batch Hydrocarbon Surfactants 2000 Kg/batch Butyl Carbitol

500 Kg/batch Other Solids 550 Kg/batch Other Fluorinated Materials SZ-203 = New Chemical Substance ← Production Flows 

# Fire Fighting Foam Process Operation Wednesday, May 05, 2010

Drumming or Packaging (5 gal pails, 55 gal drums, or 265 gal totes

* Drums containing SZ-203 are rinsed and the rinse water is charged to the next batch as part of the water charge. Once drums have been rinsed they are used to package out finished product.
# EUR-Lex - 12004V330 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 12004V330

**Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe - PART III — THE POLICIES AND FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION - TITLE VI — THE FUNCTIONING OF THE UNION - CHAPTER I — PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE INSTITUTIONS - Section 1 — The institutions - Subsection 1 — The European Parliament - Article III-330 **

*
Official Journal 310 , 16/12/2004 P. 0150 - 0150 *

Article III-330

1. A European law or framework law of the Council shall establish the necessary measures for the election of the Members of the European Parliament by direct universal suffrage in accordance with a uniform procedure in all Member States or in accordance with principles common to all Member States.

The Council shall act unanimously on initiative from, and after obtaining the consent of, the European Parliament, which shall act by a majority of its component members. This law or framework law shall enter into force after it has been approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

2. A European law of the European Parliament shall lay down the regulations and general conditions governing the performance of the duties of its Members. The European Parliament shall act on its own initiative after seeking an opinion from the Commission and after obtaining the consent of the Council. The Council shall act unanimously on all rules or conditions relating to the taxation of Members or former Members.

--------------------------------------------------
Order filed September 12 , 2013.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00772

- CV

____________ IN RE THERESA HAYNES , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 127th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2012

- 00088



### ORDER
On September 4, 2013, relator, Theresa Haynes, filed a pro se petition for
writ of mandamus in this court. See Tex. Gov’t Code § 22.221; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. Theresa Haynes makes multiple requests for relief, including that we: (1) vacate the order of the Honorable R.K. Sandill, judge of the 127th District Court, Harris County, dismissing her litigation in cause number 2012

- 00088; ( 2 ) vacate the order of the Honorable Mike Engelhart, judge of the 151st District Court, Harris County, dismissing her bill of review in cause number 2013

- 25413; ( 3 ) vacate the order of the Honorable Jerry Sandel, judge of the 284th DistrictCourt, Montgomery County, adjudging her a vexatious litigant in cause number

04

- 02

- 01229

- CV ; and ( 4 ) award her $10 million in damages against the judges
involved in these actions because they allegedly defamed her by referring to her as a vexatious litigant.

Under section 11.101 of the Civil Practice and R emedies Code, a court may enter an order prohibiting a person from filing, pro se, a new litigation without the permission of the local administrative judge if the court finds after notice and hearing that the person is a vexatious litigant. The order adju dging Theresa Haynes a vexatious litigant makes her subject to th is prefiling requirement. It spe cifically requires her to “obtain the permission of the Local Administrative Judge before filing any other lawsuit in the State of Texas.”
Under section 11.103(a), the clerk of this court “may not file

. . . [ an ] original proceeding

. . . presented , pro se, by a vexatious litigant subject to a prefiling order under S ection 11.101 unless the litigant obtains an order from the appropriate local administrative judge

. . . permitting the filing. ” See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 11.103(a). Theresa Haynes asserts in her petition for writ of mandamus that Judge Sandill permitted the filing of this original proceeding , but Judge Sandill is not the l ocal administrative judge for Harris County. This court will therefore consider dismissal of this petition unless Theresa Haynes, within 10 days of the date of this order , shows that she has obtained an ord er from the local
administrative judge permitting the filing of this original proceeding. Theresa Hayne is further instructed that, should she submit proof of permission to file this original proceeding, she must file with this court “a certified or sworn copy of every document that is material to [her] c laim for relief,” including the purported order from Judge Sandill dismissing her litigation. See Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a)(1).

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 32.1

      Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Lars Pearl, President and Chief Financial Officer of Cigma Metals Corporation
(the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that to my knowledge:

1.   The Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-QSB of the Company for the period ended
     March 31, 2006 which this certification accompanies fully complies with the
     requirements  of  section  13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
     1934:  and

2.   The information  contained  in  the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.


Date:  June  5,  2006              BY:  /s/  Lars  Pearl
       --------------                   ----------------
                                           Lars  Pearl
                                           President and Chief Financial Officer


This  certification  accompanies  this  Report  pursuant  to  Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002  and  shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes  of  Section  18  of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. A
signed  original  of  this  written  statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears  in  typed  form within the electronic version of this written statement
required  by  Section 906, has been provided to the Company and will be retained
by  the  Company  and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
staff  upon  request.
Belknap,

No. 4784.

#### Charles W. Tilton *v.*Charles T. Davis *& a.*

Argued October 7, 1959.

Decided November 3, 1959.

*279*James W. Doherty*(by brief and orally), for the plaintiff.

*Nighswander, Lord & Bownes (Mr. Lord*orally), for defendant Grossman’s of New Hampshire, Inc.

Wheeler, J.

In the absence of any agreement with the plaintiff the defendant’s mortgage would take precedence over any claim the plaintiff may have for work and labor performed and materials furnished. *Peaslee*v. *Evans,*82 N. H. 313.

The defendant contends there is no evidence in the record to establish any agreement by it to pay the plaintiff, and if any evidence should exist "the contrary evidence is so overwhelming that it was error to deny the motion for a directed verdict.” While the state of the evidence was such that reasonable men might well differ as to the weight thereof we are unable to adopt the defendant’s view.

It could be found that defendant’s agent Therrien, upon being advised of the abandonment of the property by the Davises, visited the plaintiff, inspected the property, examined the plaintiff’s records of work done for the Davises and agreed that if the plaintiff would complete the house he would be paid “the money that was due . . . from the Davises and the labor ... to complete the house from that point on.”

*280Subsequently in March and June certain materials to complete the house were delivered on the premises by the defendant. The plaintiff completed the work by early October, 1956. This evidence was sufficient to support the Court’s verdict.

*Judgment on the verdict.*

All concurred.
###### Editorial Note on Part 660

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 660 appear at 67 FR 65906, Oct. 29, 2002, 88 FR 81358, Nov. 22, 2023.

#### § 660.401 Purpose and scope.

This subpart implements the Fishery Management Plan for Commercial and Recreational Salmon Fisheries Off the Coasts of Washington, Oregon, and California developed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council. These regulations govern the management of West Coast salmon fisheries in the EEZ.
#### Aultman, Miller *&*Co. v. Nelson *et al.*

(Opinion filed January 25, 1899.)

Appeal from circuit court, Brookings county. Hon. Julian Bennett, Judge.

Action in a justice court by Aultman, Miller & Co. against Andrew Nelson and another. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant Niels Jensen appealed to the circuit court. From an order therein overruling a motion to dismiss the appeal, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

*Jenkins é Farrell,*for appellant.

*Mathews S*Murphy, for respondents.

Corson, P. J.

This is an appeal from an order of the circuit court of Brookings county denying plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the appeal taken from the judgment rendered by the justice of the peace. The same question is involved as in the appeal of Aultman, Miller & Co. v. Same Defendants, decided at this term, and reported in 11 S. D. 338, 77 N. W. 584; the only difference in the two cases being that the judgment rendered by the justice in this case was for $114.61 and the un-' dertaking was in double that amount instead of $220 in the former. This case was, by stipulation, submitted upon the same abstract and briefs as the former, and must therefore be ruled by that decision. The order of the circuit court is affirmed.
I

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 557

To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to modify

the Expanded East Coast Plan for the purpose of reducing aviation

noise in the States of New York and New Jersey, and for other purposes.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

JANUARY 21, 1993

Mr. ZIMMER (for himself, Mr. GALLO, and Mr. TORRICELLI) introduced the

following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Public Works and

Transportation

A BILL

To direct the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration to modify the Expanded East Coast Plan for

the purpose of reducing aviation noise in the States

of New York and New Jersey, and for other purposes.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Expanded East Coast

5 Plan Rollback Act of 1993’’.
2

HR 557 IH

1 SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF AVIATION NOISE IN NEW YORK AND

2 NEW JERSEY.

3 (a) MODIFICATIONS TO EXPANDED EAST COAST

4 PLAN.—Not later than eighteen months after the date of

5 the enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Fed6 eral Aviation Administration shall modify the Expanded

7 East Coast Plan for the purpose of reducing aviation noise

8 in the States of New York and New Jersey and begin im9 plementation of such modifications.

10 (b) USE OF OCEAN ROUTES.—In modifying the Ex11 panded East Coast Plan pursuant to subsection (a), the

12 Administrator shall to the greatest extent practicable re13 route aircraft using air routes over the States of New York

14 and New Jersey to air routes over the Atlantic Ocean and,

15 in cases in which such rerouting is not practicable, reroute

16 such aircraft to the air routes used before adoption of the

17 Expanded East Coast Plan.

18 (c) SUPPLEMENTAL EIS.—The Administrator shall

19 issue a supplemental environmental impact statement pur20 suant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

21 to include the effects of modifications to the Expanded

22 East Coast Plan made pursuant to this section.

23 (d) REPORT TO CONGRESS.—Not later than eighteen

24 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, the

25 Administrator shall transmit to Congress a report contain-
3

HR 557 IH

1 ing a description of modifications to the Expanded East

2 Coast Plan made pursuant to this section.

Æ
EXHIBIT 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


The Board of Directors
Digital Biometrics, Inc.:


     We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements
(Numbers 33-41510, 33-63984, 33-90900 and 333-34725) on Form S-8 of Digital
Biometrics, Inc., of our reports dated November 21, 1997, except as to note
14(a) which is as of November 24, 1997, and note 14 (b) which is as of December
1, 1997, relating to the balance sheets of Digital Biometrics, Inc., as of
September 30, 1997 and 1996, and the related statements of operations,
stockholders' equity and cash flows and the related financial statement schedule
for each of the years in the three-year period ended September 30, 1997, which
reports appear in the September 30, 1997, Annual Report on Form 10-K of Digital
Biometrics, Inc., and to the reference to our firm under the heading "Selected
Financial Data" in the Company's September 30, 1997, Annual Report on Form 10-K
which is incorporated by reference in the registration statements.



                                       KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Minneapolis, Minnesota
December 23, 1997
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                          57,788
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  348,990
<ALLOWANCES>                                    14,784
<INVENTORY>                                     32,312
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               469,924
<PP&E>                                       1,061,309
<DEPRECIATION>                                 399,698
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,251,724
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          611,612
<BONDS>                                      1,397,827
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                           31,562
<PREFERRED>                                      6,377
<COMMON>                                         1,106
<OTHER-SE>                                     810,438
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,251,724
<SALES>                                      2,197,760
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,197,760
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,915,681
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             105,841
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                506,640
<INCOME-TAX>                                   223,099
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            201,979
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                (5,067)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   196,912
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.65
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.43
        

</TABLE>
I

103D CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. R. 5127

To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to establish that Englishonly rules cause an adverse and disparate effect on certain employees

and applicants for employment.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEPTEMBER 28, 1994

Mr. UNDERWOOD introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Education

A BILL

To amend title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to

establish that English-only rules cause an adverse and

disparate effect on certain employees and applicants for

employment.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That section 703 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42

4 U.S.C. 2000e–2) is amended by adding at the end the

5 following:

6 ‘‘(o) For purposes of this title, an employment prac7 tice that requires an employee or an applicant for employ8 ment to speak only in English shall be presumed to be
2

•HR 5127 IH

1 an employment practice that causes an adverse and dis2 parate effect on such employee or such applicant.’’.

Æ
#### State, ex rel. William Rakow et al., appellees, v. E. H. Allen et al., appellants.

Filed June 16, 1913.

No. 17,333.

Appeal: Findings: Presumptions. Where the district court makes general and special findings, and omits therefrom some fact conclusively established by the evidence essential to the decree, such fact, on appeal to this-court, will be treated as found by the court.

Appeal from the district court for Dixon county: Guy T. Graves, Judge.

*Affirmed.*

*J. J. McCarthy,*for appellants.

*Kingsbury & Hendrickson, contra.*

Barnes, J.

Action in mandamus to compel the defendants to move *827the schoolhouse in district No. 31, Dixon county, Nebraska, to its former site. A trial in the district court resulted in findings and a judgment for the relators, and the defendants have appealed.

It appears that at the annual school district meeting held in school district No. 31, in the year 1910, there Avas submitted to the voters there assembled the question of moving the schoolhouse from its present site to one alleged to be nearer the center of the district. A vote on that question was taken, and resulted in 14 for and 10 against removal. According to the provisions of section 11537, Ann. St. 1911, the motion was declared lost. It further appears that within a few days thereafter E. H. Allen, H. B. Carr, two members of the school board, together with certain other persons, proceeded to remove the schoolhouse to another site. Thereupon this action was commenced to require the defendants Allen, Carr and others to replace the schoolhouse in its former position. Issues were joined, and the cause was tried to the court, who made certain general and special findings of the facts, and awarded the plaintiffs the writ of mandamus prayed for, restoring the schoolhouse in question to its former site.

The appellants contend that, the court having failed to find that there was a demand made upon the respondents to restore the schoolhouse to its former location, the judgment of the district court should be reversed. In *Lynch v. Egan,*67 Neb. 541, it was said: “In a suit in equity, Avhere the court makes special findings, and omits therefrom some fact, conclusively established by the evidence essential to the decree, such fact, on appeal to this court, Avill be treated as though found by the court.”

It appears that respondent Allen told R. H. Cross, his fellow school district director, that he could not replace the schoolhouse on its former site. And Allen testified' himself that he was present and hired Mr. Reed to move the schoolhouse from its former location; that he at that time was acting as a director of the school district. We therefore conclude that there was sufficient evidence to *828sustain a finding of the refusal of the respondents to replace the schoolhouse in its former position.

As we view the record, it contains no reversible error, and the judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

Rose, Sedgwick and Hamer, JJ., not sitting.